Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Sandoval in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Dominic Caserta
Dean Chu
Dan Furtado
Steve Glickman
Dennis Kennedy
Yoriko Kishimoto, Vice Chairperson
Norman Kline
Victor Ojakian
Linda J. LeZotte
Greg Perry
Dolores Sandoval, Chairperson

Members Absent
Paul Correa
Breene Kerr
King Lear
Althea Polanski

A quorum was present. 

Chairperson Sandoval introduced Russell Atkinson Senior Assistant Counsel who explained that he would be attending future PAC meetings and assist with any legal questions that arise.

There were no Public Presentations.

M/S/C (Ojakian/Kishimoto) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 nays and 1 abstention to approve the Minutes of June 10, 2004.   Member Caserta abstained.

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that a Board Workshop is scheduled for Friday, August 13, 2004, to review Operating Capital Scenarios and receive an overview of major activities in the Operating and Construction Divisions over the next several years.   She noted that a call for project applications for planning grants regarding community design and transportation have been mailed to Member Agencies and are due back on August 20, 2004.

Chairperson Sandoval noted that many but not all items on PAC’s Policy Priority List have been reviewed.   She reported that subcommittee workplans would be folded into the PAC’s Policy Priority List to aid the Committee in determining what policy implications the subcommittees are working on that will eventually need to be addressed by PAC and the Board of Directors. 

Chairperson Sandoval reported that a response to the Grand Jury Report is due in September 2004 and that the Committee will receive copies of that response.

Member Perry expressed concern that PAC would not have an opportunity to make recommendations to the Board regarding the response to the Grand Jury Report.

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto noted that the Grand Jury report strikes at the heart of VTA and feels that it is important for the entire Board of Directors to review and discuss the Grand Jury response. 

Ms. Gonot explained that when the Board Chairperson and Vice Chairperson receive the response for review they could make a determination to forward the response to the full Board for discussion or, if comfortable with the response, send it on to the Grand Jury.   Ms. Gonot noted that Committee Members could respond to the Grand Jury Report separately through their City Councils if they wished. 

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto recommended that the full Board of Directors review and discuss the Grand Jury response prior to sending it on to the Grand Jury. 

Member Kline expressed concern that PAC is not included in the process of responding to the Grand Jury Report.

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto reported that at the August 5, 2004 Board of Directors Meeting she asked the Board to refer the Grand Jury Report to PAC for input and recommendations for response.   She noted that upon her query there was much discussion regarding the role of PAC and PAC’s the authority to set an agenda. 

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto noted that it seemed that PAC has no more authority than the BPAC and as the PAC Bylaws are currently written only the General Manager or the Board of Directors have the authority to set agendas.

Member Kline referred to a statement made by Member Kerr in the June 12, 2004 PAC Minutes that Member Kline believed PAC was an independent advisory committee and asked if this were true.   Vice Chairperson Kishimoto responded that it was not true according to the PAC Bylaws.

Member Brodsky requested that discussion of the PAC Bylaws be placed on the September 9, 2004 PAC Agenda. 

Member Kennedy took his seat at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson cautioned the Committee that they could not continue discussion regarding the Grand Jury Report response as it was not an Item on the Agenda.  

Member Kline requested that review of the Grand Jury Report and response to the Grand Jury Report be placed on the September 9, 2004 PAC Agenda and that VTA Board of Directors be apprised that the PAC will provide their input.

Member Perry restated his request for Light Rail Ridership forecasts in actuals and asked that the report be e-mailed to him.

Member Furtado reported that at the West Valley Mayor and Managers Meeting on July 28, 2004 VTA staff presented an overview on small capacity vehicles and community bus service and reviewed a draft document for the public process for designing community bus service.   Mr. Furtado reported that individual city meetings have been scheduled with VTA staff to discuss recommendations regarding types of service needed and areas to be served.  Mr. Furtado noted that the Mayors and Managers received a report regarding the PAC’s request to receive information electronically and discussed the upcoming August 13, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop Agenda. 

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the City Grouping Report was received.

Joseph Kott, City of Palo Alto, distributed Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle and Embarcadero Shuttle maps, timetables, and a printout of the Palo Alto Shuttle Web Page.    He provided and Power Point presentation and brief history of the Palo Alto Bus Transit Shuttle Service that began in 1999 when, after much interest from the community, the Palo Alto City Council charged their Citizens Advisory Committee with the task of developing and designing a neighborhood bus transit shuttle service.  

The Palo Alto Shuttle Service connects Caltrain Stations with neighborhoods, community centers, libraries and schools.   It is a convenient transit option for commuters, students, shoppers, seniors, and visitors.  Success of the service resulted in the addition of a new Embarcadero Route.   Mr. Kott reported that the Palo Alto Shuttle service is contracted out to a private vendor, The Parking Corporation of America. The Palo Alto Transportation Division handles planning, marketing, management of the contract and customer service.  The shuttle service is free and depends on the general fund, Caltrain Shuttle subsidies, and funding from the School District.  Marketing efforts consist of shrink-wrapping buses, sending out marketing information with city utilities department bills, running print ads occasionally, and maintaining a web page.  The City of Palo Alto retains a Sales Demand Management employee in the Transportation Division to accompany individuals’ on the buses to provide information regarding routes, boarding locations, as well as bus etiquette.   Mr. Kott stated that the City of Palo Alto is interested in a consortium with the Marguerite Shuttle Services to maximize service and cost efficiencies.  He noted that the longer-term goal is to expand service San Antonio Caltrain Station to serve the needs of south Palo Alto residents as well as additional service to the Stanford Business Park.

Brodie Hamilton, Stanford's Director of Parking and Transportation Services, and
Kevin Mathy, Transportation Programs Manager, continued the Power Point presentation providing an overview of the Marguerite Shuttle Service and an in depth review of the components of Stanford’s state of the art cutting edge automated Transportation Management System noting that the system is utilizes: 1) global positioning vehicle locating capabilities and is capable of tracking location, speed and direction, 2) automatic passenger counting that tracks boardings, alightings, by route, stop, time bus and driver, 3) a voice recording system that provides internal display, automatic stop announcement, automatic external route information and safety messages,   4) computer aided dispatch that provides schedule adherence, text messaging, history replay, route and schedule reporting and analysis capabilities, 5) trigger action location editor, 6) wireless communications network providing high data transfer speed   and 7) web interface providing real-time shuttle information and predictive departure functionality.  The web site provides a live service table, public messaging, stop departure information, and real-time interactive shuttle maps.

The full presentation is available on Stanford University’s Web Page at http://transportation.stanford.edu/index.shtml. 

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Stanford Shuttle Presentation was received.

BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/ GENERAL MANAGER

Ms. Gonot provided an overview of the VTA Long Range Financial Strategy-Capital & Operating Item scheduled to be heard at the Board Workshop on August 13, 2004. 

Four Scenarios were developed in regard to VTA’s Capital and Operating Plan in support of Measure A and particularly in support of existing operations.

Scenario 1: No new tax or major revenue stream. Maintains the status quo in the near term pending Board direction. While VTA has been able to defer utilizing the authorized bonding of up to $80 million for operations until now and the next two-year budget cycle, the financial stability of the organization will continue to deteriorate.  Measure A funds will begin to flow to VTA by July 2006. Downtown East Valley (DTEV) and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) could potentially begin construction but will not be able to be completed.  Under this scenario Federal New Starts funds will most assuredly not be allocated to BART based upon VTA’s financial situation.

Scenario 2: Contemplates a new, permanent ¼ cent sales tax for VTA operating or capital purposes approved by voters in November 2006. While DTEV and BART can be completed, no additional service other than that resulting from completed capital projects could be implemented. Funds are available for other Measure A projects, but the bulk of the funds are not available until the final eight years of the Measure.

Scenario 3: Contemplates a new, permanent, ½ cent sales tax approved by voters in November 2006. VTA would retain 75 percent (3/8-cent) for operating or capital purposes and the remaining 25 percent (1/8-cent) would be passed through to the cities and County on a formula basis (similar to the 1996 Measure A/B) for pavement management or other transportation related purposes. Under this scenario all Measure A and other major transportation projects and programs will be able to be implemented. Additional service increases, beyond that resulting from capital projects being completed, can begin by 2008.

Scenario 4: This is essentially the same as Scenario 3 except that DTEV and BART are delayed four and five years respectively. While delaying these projects does increase the availability of funds for other projects in the early years, the net result is that the increase cost of construction outweighs any debt service savings and the total project costs increase by nearly $700 million. There are other negatives to a delay, which are difficult, if not impossible to quantify, such as impact on the transportation network and delayed development activities along these corridors and station sites.

Member Chu expressed concern that BART and DTEV were not broken out given that they are separate projects. 

Member Chu referred to Exhibit B-1, Page 1 of 2, footnote (9) Capital Expressway to Neiman with enhanced bus Santa Clara to Alum Rock and noted that in the VTP 2030 the cost was listed assuming light rail rather than enhanced bus. 

Member Chu referred to Scenario 4 and expressed concern that the total BART/DTEV net increase cost of $700 million was pointed out but the net decrease of $300 million in total bonding was not.

Member Perry referred to Exhibit B-1, Scenario 4, and noted that the 2036 column shows a net of $5.8 billion (in 2036 dollars) ending balance available for other Measure A Projects and noted that the same column in Scenario 3, shows a net of   $5.3 billion.  He noted that pushing it back costs go up at 3.5 percent according to the inflation rate but money will be saved at 5 percent because of the interest rates saving approximately one-half billion 2036 dollars rather than costing $700 million as illustrated.

Ms. Gonot noted that at the August 13, 2004 Board Workshop presentation there will be a discussion regarding what is available for Measure A dollars in the first 10 years of all four scenarios to help the Board in the decision making process. 

Member Chu noted that if there is a delay in other Measure A projects as contemplated in several of the scenarios, it would be helpful if the additional costs of delaying those projects were listed.

Member Perry expressed concern that the $700 million number was presented as he feels it is very misleading and should be pointed out to the Board of Directors as a mistake and an inaccurate number.   It portrays he felt,  the opposite of what is true about the effect of a BART Project delay. He noted that delaying BART by 5 years would free up the total amount of money needed for other projects. 

Member Caserta left the meeting at 5:35 p.m.

Member Brodsky suggested that the document   VTA Long Range Financial Strategy - Capital & Operating   not be presented to the Board of Directors.   Member Brodsky suggested that if sent to the Board it should be with a recommendation from the PAC that it should be viewed as suspect as it combines future dollars with current dollars.

Member Kline noted that the item was listed on the PAC Agenda for review and not recommendation.

Member Kline left the meeting at 5:40 p.m.

Members Perry and Brodsky recommended a new Scenario 1 they feel is more credible and stated their recommendation for Scenario 1 goes back and evaluates what can be accomplished without new taxes. 

Chairperson Sandoval suggested Members share their comments with their representative on the Board of Directors.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, Overview of VTA’s Transit Capital Scenarios and the Process to Develop an Expenditure Plan was received.

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission   (MTC) through Transportation Equity Act For the 21^st Century (TEA-21) reauthorization will receive approximately $16.1 million for road rehabilitation in Santa Clara County.  He reported that staff and the Capital Improvement Subcommittee (CIP) of the Technical Advisory Committee to develop a list of projects.  The CALL for Projects was issued and approved by the Board of Directors in June 2004, and responses were collected on July 13, 2004.  He reported that the cities on the project list received two-year programming targets based on each city’s percentage of MTC’s total projected cost of maintaining and reconstructing local streets and roads countywide over the next 25 years. 

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding in 2005/06 and 2006/07 was received.

Marcella Rensi, Principal Transportation Planner provided a brief overview of the STIP and Local Program Reserve programming for the State Route 152 Corridor.  She noted that on staff recommendation number 4 and 5 on Page 4 were no longer necessary because the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has allowed the programming of VTA’s STIP funding share in 2005/06.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Local Program Reserve Programming for the State Route 152 Corridor was received.

Mr. Sighamony provided a brief overview of the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for April - June 2004.

Member LeZotte referred to Page 21 of 53 and asked if the project to implement
6.5 miles of Class 2 bicycle lanes on San Fernando Street, Almaden Boulevard, Woz Way, 4^th Street and 11^th  Street, would cause the loss of parking on the inside of the streets particularly in the area of Alamden, Market Street, and First Street.

Mr. Sighamony stated that he would need to get back to her with that information.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for April - June 2004 was received.

Samantha Swan, Transportation Planner II, provided a brief overview of the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report was received.

OTHER

Chairperson Sandoval announced the Board of Directors Workshop is scheduled for August 13, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. at the San Jose Hyatt, Mediterranean Center, 70 North First Street, San Jose, California.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara R. Cappa, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors